G.R. No. 55272. April 10, 1989.
JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, IMPACT CORPORATION, RICARDO DE LEON and EDUARDO DE LEON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. (JARDINE) filed a complaint for sum of money against private respondents Impact Corporation (IMPACT) and its sureties, Ricardo and Eduardo de Leon. JARDINE alleged that IMPACT, under a discounting line agreement, assigned its receivables to JARDINE with the obligation to collect from the issuers and remit the proceeds. Despite collecting on these receivables, IMPACT failed to remit the amounts to JARDINE. Concurrently with the complaint, JARDINE applied for a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging in its “Special Allegations for Preliminary Attachment” that the defendants had a “reservation” not to honor their obligations at the time of executing the deeds of assignment and surety agreement, and that they had no other sufficient security for the claim. The trial court granted the application and issued the writ.
Private respondents moved to dissolve the attachment, arguing the grounds alleged were not among those specified in Rule 57, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, and that the supporting affidavit was defective for failing to state that the amount due was “above all legal set-offs or counterclaims” as required by Rule 57, Section 3. The trial court denied the motion. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals annulled the writ, finding the affidavit fatally defective for omitting the required averment regarding legal set-offs or counterclaims.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the writ of preliminary attachment for failure of the supporting affidavit to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 57, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is a harsh remedy, and the statutory requirements for its issuance must be strictly construed and faithfully complied with. Rule 57, Section 3 explicitly requires that the affidavit must state, among other things, “that the amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims.” This requirement is jurisdictional. The affidavit submitted by JARDINE, while alleging the defendants’ fraud and lack of sufficient security, wholly failed to contain this specific averment regarding legal counterclaims. Following established jurisprudence, such a fatal defect in the foundational affidavit renders the writ void, as the court acquires no jurisdiction to issue it. The defect cannot be cured by amendment, and the property seized under a void writ cannot validate the proceeding. The Court emphasized that the steps prescribed by the rules are not inconsequential but are essential to confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ was properly declared null and void.